United States v. Coke, 113
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | LUMBARD, , and HAYS and ANDERSON, Circuit |
| Citation | 339 F.2d 183 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Simeon Jessamy COKE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Docket Number | Docket 28722.,No. 113,113 |
| Decision Date | 07 December 1964 |
339 F.2d 183 (1964)
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Simeon Jessamy COKE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 113, Docket 28722.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued October 5, 1964.
Decided December 7, 1964.
Edward Friedman, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
John R. Bartels, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., S. D. N. Y. (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty. S. D. N. Y., and James M. Brachman, Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and HAYS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:
After four days of trial a jury found Simeon Jessamy Coke guilty, as charged,
The appellant contends, among other things, that the court below erred in sustaining the Government's objection to a question, directed by defense counsel to a government agent, who was on the witness stand, seeking disclosure of the name of the informer who allegedly introduced the witness-agent to the appellant immediately prior to the first of the three sales in question.
The Government's evidence purported to show that the informer had, in addition to making the introduction, waited on the sidewalk outside of the building where the sale of the narcotics by the appellant to the agent Gonzalez allegedly took place, and that thereafter the informer and the agent departed together. While from the Government's own evidence it therefore appears that the informer was something more than a mere "tip-off" man and had, to a significant extent, participated in events which are alleged to have formed a part of the offense charged, the defendant made no claim in support of the admissibility of the question he asked by showing why knowledge of the informer's identity would be relevant and helpful to the defense or essential to a fair trial. There is nothing to indicate that between the first and second trials the defendant sought to procure the name and address of the informer nor did he at any time advise the court that he needed the information in order that he might interview the informer or call upon him to testify. This evidential question arose early in the trial when the theory of the defense was not clearly formulated. In sustaining the Government's objection the trial judge did not close the door against a renewal of the question at a later stage,1 but the defense did not do so. This court has recognized that there are circumstances under which the privilege against disclosure of the identity of an informer no longer applies, as enunciated in Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957). United States v. Holiday, 319 F.2d 775 (2 Cir. 1963); United States v. Cimino, 321 F.2d 509, 512 (2 Cir. 1963); United States v. Romano, 278 F.2d 202, 205 (2 Cir. 1960). See also Williams v. United States, 273 F.2d 781, 796 (9 Cir. 1960). In this case, however, the defendant in the course of the trial gave no reason at all why he was entitled to the name and address of the informer or why his request was something beyond the limits of the privilege.
Entrapment was not an issue and on appeal the appellant's counsel has for the first time claimed he sought the informer's testimony on the question of mistaken identity or fraud. Other witnesses identified the appellant and, absent a showing by the defense at the trial that the disclosure of the informer's name and address was necessary for a
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Mainello, 71-CR-401.
...is necessary to insure a fair trial or that other 345 F. Supp. 882 judicially specified conditions are present.73 United States v. Coke, 339 F.2d 183 (2d Cir. 1964). A mere request for disclosure is insufficient. United States v. Russ, 362 F.2d 843 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 923......
-
United States v. Bukowski, 17378.
...to the relations between the court and counsel. Cf. United States v. Scott, 257 F.2d 374, 377 (7th Cir. 1958); United States v. Coke, 339 F.2d 183, 185 (2d Cir. 1964). Contrary to respondent's claims, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in informing the jurors on voir dire of his r......
-
State v. Milligan
...States v. Russ, 362 F.2d 843 (2 Cir. 1966), Cert. den., 385 U.S. 923, 87 S.Ct. 236, 17 L.Ed.2d 146 (1967) and United States v. Coke, 339 F.2d 183 (2 Cir. 1964). In the first case, the informer introduced a narcotics agent to defendant as a 'friend from New Jersey who wanted to 'cop some stu......
-
United States v. Coke, 529
...because of comments by the judge which could have been taken as reflecting on the defendant. United States v. Coke, 404 F.2d 839 339 F.2d 183 (2 Cir. 1964). A third trial before Judge Cooper and a jury in January 1965 again resulted in conviction on all three counts. With the benefit of a f......
-
United States v. Coke, No. 529
...because of comments by the judge which could have been taken as reflecting on the defendant. United States v. Coke, 404 F.2d 839 339 F.2d 183 (2 Cir. 1964). A third trial before Judge Cooper and a jury in January 1965 again resulted in conviction on all three counts. With the benefit of a f......
-
United States v. Mainello, No. 71-CR-401.
...is necessary to insure a fair trial or that other 345 F. Supp. 882 judicially specified conditions are present.73 United States v. Coke, 339 F.2d 183 (2d Cir. 1964). A mere request for disclosure is insufficient. United States v. Russ, 362 F.2d 843 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 923......
-
Simmons v. State, No. 20001
...statement. The damage has been done.' To the same effect see United States v. Kelley, 314 F.2d 461 (6th Cir. 1963); United States v. Coke, 339 F.2d 183 (2nd Cir. In Crenshaw v. Southern Railway Company, 214 S.C. 553, 53 S.E.2d 789 (1949), a civil case, this Court held that: 'Aside from our ......
-
United States v. Bukowski, No. 17378.
...to the relations between the court and counsel. Cf. United States v. Scott, 257 F.2d 374, 377 (7th Cir. 1958); United States v. Coke, 339 F.2d 183, 185 (2d Cir. 1964). Contrary to respondent's claims, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in informing the jurors on voir dire of his r......